Samsung Q60T Or TU8500
- Thread starter Bobbya82
- Start date
To be honest, neither.
Samsung's 2020 QLED models have taken a step backwards in performance terms from the previous years models. They're just not as good. In addition, the entry-level QLED models (Q60T and Q65T) don't offer the same range of benefits as the higher-specified QLED ranges. They should really sit in a category of their own, somewhere between QLED and standard LCD/LED TV. In reality though, they're closer to everyone else's standard LCD/LED than Samsung would really like to admit.
This brings us to the bigger problem for Samsung: It's that the TU range is worse.
The whole TV market has taken a bit of a battering with the general world economic picture, and then Brexit, and now COVID. The consequence is that business costs are up, sales are down, and profits are in the toilet. Panasonic and Sony have been losing money in TV production for years. LG and Samsung have deeper corporate pockets, higher sales volumes, and better control of costs; so they're weathering the storm a little better, but they're still feeling the pain which is why this year's Samsung QLEDs have had features stripped compared to last year.
If it was my money I wouldn't tip £600 in to a 43" Q60T. It's just not good enough. But no one is making an outstanding 43" £600 TV to compare. They're all compromised in some way, be it refresh rate, viewing angle, screen brightness for HDR, processing power, a lack of local dimming etc etc. So then, my view would be that if I'm going to have to compromise, then I might as well save some money in the process.
Unless you're a serious serious gamer, I would look at the Philips 43PUS8555 @ £449. It's a better set than the TU8500, and it has a better specification than the Q60T as well, and all for £150 less. Get it from Richer Sounds with their 6-year warranty if applicable.
Did this and other replies help you? If yes, then please do the decent thing and click the T-H-A-N-K-S button on all those the posts. This isn't a big thing to ask of you. It takes a couple of seconds to do, and it costs you nothing.
You'll find that the Thanks button appears when you hover the mouse pointer near the Quote Multi-quote buttons.
This is the proper way to show your thanks and respect for the time, experience and help someone gave to you when you were in need. Be a good forum user and say thank you in the proper way. It will help to ensure that you continue to receive advice
Samsung's 2020 QLED models have taken a step backwards in performance terms from the previous years models. They're just not as good. In addition, the entry-level QLED models (Q60T and Q65T) don't offer the same range of benefits as the higher-specified QLED ranges. They should really sit in a category of their own, somewhere between QLED and standard LCD/LED TV. In reality though, they're closer to everyone else's standard LCD/LED than Samsung would really like to admit.
This brings us to the bigger problem for Samsung: It's that the TU range is worse.
The whole TV market has taken a bit of a battering with the general world economic picture, and then Brexit, and now COVID. The consequence is that business costs are up, sales are down, and profits are in the toilet. Panasonic and Sony have been losing money in TV production for years. LG and Samsung have deeper corporate pockets, higher sales volumes, and better control of costs; so they're weathering the storm a little better, but they're still feeling the pain which is why this year's Samsung QLEDs have had features stripped compared to last year.
If it was my money I wouldn't tip £600 in to a 43" Q60T. It's just not good enough. But no one is making an outstanding 43" £600 TV to compare. They're all compromised in some way, be it refresh rate, viewing angle, screen brightness for HDR, processing power, a lack of local dimming etc etc. So then, my view would be that if I'm going to have to compromise, then I might as well save some money in the process.
Unless you're a serious serious gamer, I would look at the Philips 43PUS8555 @ £449. It's a better set than the TU8500, and it has a better specification than the Q60T as well, and all for £150 less. Get it from Richer Sounds with their 6-year warranty if applicable.
Did this and other replies help you? If yes, then please do the decent thing and click the T-H-A-N-K-S button on all those the posts. This isn't a big thing to ask of you. It takes a couple of seconds to do, and it costs you nothing.
You'll find that the Thanks button appears when you hover the mouse pointer near the Quote Multi-quote buttons.
This is the proper way to show your thanks and respect for the time, experience and help someone gave to you when you were in need. Be a good forum user and say thank you in the proper way. It will help to ensure that you continue to receive advice
Thanks for coming back to us.
I will look at the Philips 43PUS8555, does it have all the smart apps like Samsung though?
i can get the Q60t 43 for £479 is it still worth it for that price? Would it be any good in a room with a large window?
thanks again
I will look at the Philips 43PUS8555, does it have all the smart apps like Samsung though?
i can get the Q60t 43 for £479 is it still worth it for that price? Would it be any good in a room with a large window?
thanks again
£479 seems unrealistically-cheap for what is a newly launched model. The big discounters don't appear to be able to get anywhere near that price. There just isn't the margin in TV retailing to give away that extra discount on top of what they already chop out of retail prices. Be careful of scams.
Pretty much all lounge-designated TVs are smart now, so yes, the Philips has smart apps. Whether they're exactly the ones you think you want or think you need though is a different question. Check out the TV on the Philips website or via a reputable dealer.
I'll be direct with you; I have very little faith in TV manufacturers when it comes to smart apps. In my experience, TV manufacturers put insufficient processing power in anything but their upper tier TVs to run apps properly. That, or they opt for a hobbled version of each app that fits the under-specified power that is there.
Another issue I have is their longer-term support. It's fine while the set is on sale and maybe for a year or so after. Beyond that though it's a lottery. The problem is funding.
Compare and contrast the average smart TV with something such as a Firestick or Roku box. All do the same basic job - iPlayer, catch-up TV etc. The difference is that Roku and Amazon both derive a revenue stream from those users who then choose to go on to subscribe to the additional services. TV manufacturers never got this part of the equation sorted out. In effect, they own a park in which someone else's circus camps, and they get very little of the gate money in return. As a result then, there's too little money coming to them to pay for the ongoing support that apps require, particularly ones designed to run on very limited hardware.
I have a smart TV. It's a 50" Panasonic, less than 18 months old. I also have a 4K Firestick plugged in to it. The TV cost me £800 new. The Firestick cost me £40. If I want to do anything requiring smart apps it's the Firestick that's my Go-To device, not the TV apps.
Pretty much all lounge-designated TVs are smart now, so yes, the Philips has smart apps. Whether they're exactly the ones you think you want or think you need though is a different question. Check out the TV on the Philips website or via a reputable dealer.
I'll be direct with you; I have very little faith in TV manufacturers when it comes to smart apps. In my experience, TV manufacturers put insufficient processing power in anything but their upper tier TVs to run apps properly. That, or they opt for a hobbled version of each app that fits the under-specified power that is there.
Another issue I have is their longer-term support. It's fine while the set is on sale and maybe for a year or so after. Beyond that though it's a lottery. The problem is funding.
Compare and contrast the average smart TV with something such as a Firestick or Roku box. All do the same basic job - iPlayer, catch-up TV etc. The difference is that Roku and Amazon both derive a revenue stream from those users who then choose to go on to subscribe to the additional services. TV manufacturers never got this part of the equation sorted out. In effect, they own a park in which someone else's circus camps, and they get very little of the gate money in return. As a result then, there's too little money coming to them to pay for the ongoing support that apps require, particularly ones designed to run on very limited hardware.
I have a smart TV. It's a 50" Panasonic, less than 18 months old. I also have a 4K Firestick plugged in to it. The TV cost me £800 new. The Firestick cost me £40. If I want to do anything requiring smart apps it's the Firestick that's my Go-To device, not the TV apps.